9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act was also imposed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had imported self propelled Tug Smit Jaguar, year Built 2009 with NASSAU Registry and claimed exemption under Notification No.21/2002 dt. 01.03.2002 at Sl.No.216, List No.12 and condition Sr.No.31. As per the condition of the Notification claimed by the applicant, the applicant is entitled to import the said vessel into India in connection with petroleum operations under specified contract. As per the condition No.31, the importer was required to obtain a Certificate from a duly authorized officer of the Director General of Hydrocarbons, in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India to the effect that the imported goods are required for petroleum op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enable the vessel to undertake the emergency salvage operations. The Mumbai Port Trust had also taken necessary approval from Director General of Shipping to undertake the salvage operations. As the vessel was imported by the applicant for a particular purpose and the same has been achieved therefore, benefit of Notification 21/2002 at Sl.No.216 cannot be denied as they have executed a bond although there is no post import condition in the Notification. 5. On the other hand Shri P.S.Sodhi, learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that the vessel has been imported for a specific purpose i.e. for petroleum operations and the above Notification gives the benefit only if it is used for the petroleum operations. It is an admitted fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion imposed on the applicant in the said Notification. 7.1 In the case of Clough Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2006 (198) ELT 457, the facts of the case are similar to the facts of the case in hand. By a majority decision of this Tribunal it was held that the applicants are entitled for the benefit of Notification 21/2002 as the goods were intended to use for a particular purpose. The order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2006 (202) ELT A 59. 7.2 In this case also, the vessel was imported for petroleum operations and was intended to use for that purpose only therefore, the benefit of notification discussed above can not be denied. 8. In these circumstances, the applicant has made o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
